People can perceive misfortunes as caused by previous bad deeds (immanent justice reasoning) or resulting in ultimate compensation (ultimate justice reasoning). Across two studies, we investigated the relation between these types of justice reasoning and identified the processes (perceptions of deservingness) that underlie them for both others (Study 1) and the self (Study 2). Study 1 demonstrated that observers engaged in more ultimate (vs. immanent) justice reasoning for a "good" victim and greater immanent (vs. ultimate) justice reasoning for a "bad" victim. In Study 2, participants' construals of their bad breaks varied as a function of their self-worth, with greater ultimate (immanent) justice reasoning for participants with higher (lower) self-esteem. Across both studies, perceived deservingness of bad breaks or perceived deservingness of ultimate compensation mediated immanent and ultimate justice reasoning respectively.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4103766PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0101803PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

justice reasoning
28
ultimate justice
16
immanent ultimate
12
immanent justice
12
ultimate
8
justice
8
ultimate compensation
8
study study
8
ultimate immanent
8
bad breaks
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!